The Literary Translation Blogabout

It’s good to see the blogstorm around the pros and cons of literary translation gather steam. Peter Kirk and Henry Neufeld are meeting my arguments head on with arguments of their own in favor of clear, accurate, and natural translations in the mold of TNIV.

Doug Chaplin, as I have come to expect from him, adds some arresting observations. First of all, he notes that Peter Kirk (and Henry Neufeld) and I are not as far apart as it might appear from the ongoing back-and-forth.

Let me exemplify. The Gideon Bibles to be found in hotel rooms and distributed on university campuses are still by and large KJV in small print all-prose format. The congregation I serve is a supporter of Gideons International, but let me state my views clearly: the organization fails to be true to its goals by distributing KJV and in that format. The Gideons would be taking two giant steps forward if they distributed NKJV in a format that allows for visual tracking of content and formats poetry as such.

It won’t happen, I realize – it is too much of a stretch for the culture of the organization in question – but I would be even more pleased if Gideons distributed other translations as well. TNIV and CEV come to mind as suitable in a number of contexts.

The differences between Peter and Henry and me come, I think, at the level of expectations for adult readers. The kind of translation I would like to see in the pews of my congregation (for the record, it’s NIV), to hear read before the sermon and to be used for personal study (for the record, it’s everything from NKJV to the Message) does not yet exist. It would be a literary, dynamic equivalent translation of the kind I’m working on for Old Testament passages I’ve studied in depth.

[PLEASE NOTE: the above paragraph, which I retain so that the ensuing comment thread remains comprehensible, is sloppily written. My meaning: the Bible translation of my dreams for worship and private study does not yet exist. The Bibles currently used in those settings in my congregation (for the record, NIV, etc.) tend to simplify the diction of the original language texts and under-represent their literary qualities. The result: a "dynamic equivalent" falsely so-called.]

Peter and Henry prefer a translation like TNIV, which deliberately pitches to a 7^th grade level. Since almost all the adults in the congregations I serve or have served read at a 12^th grade level or higher, or are progressing in that direction (ed.: they better be, given the way you preach), TNIV is, from my point of view, a dumbed-down translation. It is also not literary enough to be defined as a natural, dynamic equivalent of the original language texts it renders – at least in the case of the literature I know best (Isaiah, Psalms, Proverbs, Job, etc.).

As far as younger readers go, and ESL readers, Peter, Henry, and I probably see eye-to-eye. In the church I serve, K-4 kids receive an NIrV illustrated scripture anthology; 3^rd graders receive an ICB; and 7^th graders receive a TNIV.

Doug makes another statement which J. K. Gayle highlights in a comment. Its truth for me is non-negotiable:

The text is a strange text, from a culture and a time different from our own. One of the dangers of “clear” translation is that it disguises the need for interpretation, and so in its clarity deceives the reader.

The locus of interpretation par excellence has been and always will be a community of believers. Recently, Lingamish made this point with characteristic verve (here and here).

Other links and discussions of the questions touched upon here: Ros Clarke and First Followers. Kevin Edgecomb has contributed some helpful comments to threads on this blog. I look forward to a promised post by Iyov. May the storm continue.

UPDATE: Here is Iyov’s first post on the topic. Here are Bob MacDonald’s reflections. Here are Carl Conrad’s thoughts.

Comments

[Peter Nathan]

BTW, Carl Conrad referred to your blog and literal translations on the B-Greek list yesterday. He was very supportive of your approach.

[Bob MacDonald]

You and I were both thinking about the same things at the same time! And I think we agree - keep it at a level to be reached not the lowest common denominator - unless it was written to that level.

[Iyov]

The first installment of my promised series.

[JohnFH]

I added links to Iyov's and Bob MacDonald's posts above.

[Lingamish]

Do you get kickbacks from the Bible publishers for all those versions? What about memorization? What about public reading? I guess the NIV franchise helps give everything a somewhat similar sound.

I'd like to knock a few bricks out of your tottery argument but I am sitting at the feet of a Greek master for the next month and so will probably only have time to hurl insults in your general direction.

[Suzanne]

John,

Can you explain how the TNIV is dumbed-down significantly from your ideal level, the NIV. I am completely in the dark about this. Is this going to be a single issue blogabout on the singular "they"?

[JohnFH]

Lingamish,

I assume you think CEV is better than ICB for a 3rd grade Bible. You may be right. I'm interested in your advice.

As for the NIrV illustrated anthology, that product could easily be bested. Perhaps someone already has. Once again, your suggestions are welcome. It's a read-along Bible, and it's been a hit.

As for a 7th grade Bible, what I notice about this age group is that they are all over the map in terms of reading level. My confirmation co-leader works hard with 7th and 8th graders on Bible memorization. But the result is a bit hybrid, since she grew up with the KJV and tends to veer in that direction without realizing it.

The NIVs were already in the pews when I arrived at my present charge. In a former parish, when money for pew Bibles came in and the worship committee was given a choice of either NRSV, NIV, or ESV, they chose ESV because, I think, it reminded them the most of RSV which they grew up with.

So, please, hurl a few detailed insults in this direction. I wouldn't be surprised if some or all of them stick.

[JohnFH]

Suzanne,

after Lingamish, you are the second person to assume that NIV represents an ideal for me. My bad for not clarifying.

NIV just happens to be the pew Bible my current parish has in its pews. They purchased them 5 or 10 years ago.

I'm not the kind of pastor to impose my will on questions of this kind. My guess: if the people of my parish could do it all over again, and I gave them a choice between NRSV, TNIV, and ESV, they would choose ESV because it would remind them the most of the translations they grew up with (KJV and RSV).

[Iyov]

I'm confused -- you wrote:

The kind of translation I would like to see in the pews of my congregation (for the record, it’s NIV)

I realize the NIV is a popular translation, but it is hardly a literary translation.

to hear read before the sermon and to be used for personal study (for the record, it’s everything from NKJV to the Message)

I'm not sure what you mean by "hear read", but why are these translations you would like to see used more? The NKJV is a step backwards from the careful rhythm of the KJV (reflecting at least one element of the Hebrew) and the Message is at best the author's personal reaction to Scripture -- interesting, perhaps, but hardly authoritative.

[JohnFH]

You are confused, Iyov, because I expressed myself in a confusing way.

I was just describing the way things are in my parish. The only Bible purchases and practices I have direct control over are those that regard K-4, 3rd and 7th graders.

There are a number of talented lectors in my parish who read the text I preach on before I preach it. They read on a rotating basis. Each of them seems to have a favorite translation. I have toyed with the idea of finding someone to train the best of them, and asking them to stick to a particular translation, which would logically be the one in the pews. But maybe not, the parish does not have a tradition of following along with pew Bible in hand. Do I really want people to have their nose in a Bible while I am preaching? No, because I preach extemporaneously, and try to keep eye contact going.

To be honest, the translation I like to hear the most in church is still the KJV. In a former parish, I had a reader (an English prof) who would make it sing in public reading. If cadenced properly, etc., KJV is still understandable to many people. But I also realize that many other people just find it odd.

[Lingamish]

I'm cool on NIV and also on people migrating to ESV from that tradition. I'm interested in what happens to congregations diachronically when children are given a translation that differs from what the adults use. My prediction would be that the translation kids grow up with is the one they will react positively to as adults. So a pastor or church committee could say, "Let's give the old folks what they're comfortable with since we're never going to change their minds. But with the kids lets give them a good clear translation that's easy to read and twenty years from now that's going to be the pew Bible as well.

[Suzanne]

I certainly misunderstood your comment on the NIV, but now your post makes more sense. I don't want to make a big thing about this but there are lots of problems in the NIV that are not in the TNIV. The TNIV is a significant improvement on the NIV, so those congregations and groups which like the level of the NIV should transition to the TNIV.

The NIV was/is very popular and the TNIV is much better. My gripe is that my former congregation just bought new NIV's for the youth/grade 7-12 group. Open any page and the TNIV is very similar but has corrected most problems and made explicit certain ambiguities in the Hebrew. THere are notes added into the TNIV that were not there in the NIV.

So my first point would be, if a group likes the NIV, they should transition to the TNIV.

Iyov is complaining about inconistencies in the advertising of the TNIV, but I have not seen him prove that the TNIV is less literal or literary than the TNIV.

I am not commenting on the TNIV as a literary version. However, it should definitely inherit the popularity of the NIV. It is much better.

I'll respond about the ESV later.

[Iyov]

Iyov is complaining about inconistencies in the advertising of the TNIV, but I have not seen him prove that the TNIV is less literal or literary than the TNIV.

Well, it would be quite difficult to prove that the TNIV is less literary than the TNIV, but if I could, it would open entirely new insights into Titus 1:12 -- and maybe if I'm very lucky, finally explain Ray Stephen's famous song.

[Suzanne]

Iyov is complaining about inconistencies in the advertising of the TNIV, but I have not seen him prove that the TNIV is less literal or literary than the TNIV.

I meant "less literal or literary than the NIV."

(I'm sick and travelling, with intermittent internet access - a bummer of a combination.)

Iyov and John, I totally miss why you think the TNIV is less literal than the NIV. I'm not saying that they are a literary translation but they sure beat some others out there.

If by a literary translation you both mean male language only then I will bow out. The KJV and Luther's Bible are a considerable advance on the male language of the RSV.

[JohnFH]

Suzanne,

I fixed your nameless post and deleted what I thought was duplication.

I didn't mean to suggest than TNIV is less - or more - literal than NIV. You'd be surprised how unfamiliar I am with both translations.

No matter what translation I'm using, I find myself, when teaching and preaching, dealing with questions of gender as a social construct. Both men and women, in my experience, are constructing their gender identity in unhealthy ways today, no less than yesterday. I want to see progress, and I think there is progress - for women, at least.

The best work I know about on issues of gender as they relate to Bible translation is the work of David Stein and company.

I don't think the dust is likely to settle on this issue any time soon. I'm in a listening mode myself. So keep at me.

[Iyov]

I don't have a pony in this race. I have no strong opinions on which is more literal: the TNIV or the NIV -- to me the question is akin to asking who was the greater humanitarian: Mao or Stalin? I think that it is clear that the TNIV is a very minor revision of the NIV that addressed few of the underlying problems with the latter.

The point of the comment on my blog -- as I clearly indicated over there -- was that at least one NIV translator believes that the NIV is more literal (or so he has stated in print.) He is also your former teacher, so perhaps you could take it up with him.

[Suzanne]

I am not in contact with Dr. Fee at this time.

In general, the NIV has been an overwhelmingly popular translation. However, with the advent of gender accurate Bibles, many people who liked the NIV asked for a more literal Bible. So the implication was that the gender accurate language made the TNIV less literal.

You then wrote,

(It is worth noting that the comparisons made by Wayne and Craig Blomberg [that the TNIV was more literal] explicitly exclude deviations touching on issues of gender and the non-standard English "singular they" -- which arguably comprise the most prominent classes of revisions to the NIV.)

This sentence of yours gave me to understand that you thought that the gender accurate language of the TNIV makes it less literal. However, I have evidently made a false assumption. So now I am curious about what you did mean by that sentence.

[Suzanne]

John, I just saw this last comment of yours now.

Tne TNIV is almost word for word the same as the NIV, except where significant and important corrections have been made, and except for gender accurate language. Look at Psalm 51, for example. So, those who liked the NIV should be encouraged to replace it with the TNIV, if they don't want to change the style of their translation. However, most people reading your post will think that you have more approval of the NIV than the TNIV and therefore disapprove of gender neutral lg. My former church just bought the NIV this year for the youth because they won't use a gender accurate Bible.

I have no interest in boosting the TNIV for those who would read the NRSV. But for those who want the NIV, the TNIV is a vast improvement.

On top of that, I also am interested in a literary translation, but not if it is addressed to brothers. The "brothers" were the group in our church who excluded all women from any public decision. "Brothers" in my experience are men who exclude women. You know the Greek word was used for both men and women, and the English word is not.

The KJV, which I am perfectly comfortable with, was much more gender neutral, in that "men" and "brethren" were used as gender neutral terms, also "children". Now, in contemporary Bibles, NIV and ESV, "men", "sons" and "brothers" are used to keep women from assuming that they participate on par with men. They participate in salvation on par with men, but they are only "living in Christ" if they are subordinate to men, and included under the aegis of men in the text.

In my opinion, criticizing the TNIV but not the NIV is turning back the page on progress for women.

[Iyov]

Suzanne, I made that comment on another blog, and have answered your questions in painful detail now on multiple blogs. I also pointed out that you have badly confused "literal" and "literary".

Shall I simply repeat all of my comments on all the blogs that you have posted on here? Or alternatively, shall we pick even more random blogs to continue this discussion on to make the discussion completely incomprehensible to anyone attempting to follow it?

[Suzanne]

I also pointed out that you have badly confused "literal" and "literary".

The confluence of your post implying that the TNIV is less literal than the NIV and this one where I understood that the NIV is the ideal and the TNIV dumbed down, brought me to the point where I did not know what was what in anybody else's mind. I do distinguish between the two, but typed in the wrong thing.

[Iyov]

Suzanne: First, I never implied that the TNIV is less literal than the NIV. Let me say it one more time, in the hope you will get it this time: The main US publisher and one of the translators of the TNIV say it is less literal than the NIV.

I do not turn to Fee or Zondervan for spiritual or intellectual enlightenment. In contrast, I have a very low opinion of Zondervan, the NIV, and the TNIV. Should all three of them vanish in a twinkle of an eye, I should not shed a tear.

I am also deeply unimpressed with the Fee-Stuart book (which I read in preparation for a blog series, and which I found to be full of sloppy thinking and factually inaccurate statements.)

I was careful in my distinctions.

It is true that John's post was a bit sloppy -- he did say that the NIV was the ideal pew Bible -- and I took him to task for that -- but he later suggested that he had had used sloppy grammar and that was not his intended meaning.

[JohnFH]

My wording was sloppy. My point was precisely something else, to wit: that the Bible translation of my dreams for worship and private study does not yet exist.

The Bibles currently used in those settings in my congregation (for the record, NIV, etc.) fall short in more than one way. Here I am concerned about the tendency of contemporary translations to pitch to a 7th or 8th grade level and pat themselves on the back about it.

The KJV is said to pitch to a 12th grade level. That's where I would put a translation like NJPSV, or Alter's translation of the Psalms.
That's the kind of translation I want, at a 12th grade level.

A translation for adults, that doesn't cut any spiritual or theological corners. Why? Because when I read Isaiah, Psalms, Job, Song of Songs, and Qohelet in Hebrew, I am reading literature for adults written at a 12th grade level or higher.

A translation that takes a source text written at grade level x and dumbs it down to grade level x-5 is unfaithful to the source text in a fundamental way. That is my primary point.

[Iyov]

I'm afraid that I must completely disagree with you that the NJPS is at a 12th grade level. Pretty much every non-Orthodox Bar Mitzvah boy or Bat Mitzvah girl in the US uses either the NJPS (in a few cases, the OJPS) and that seems to work well -- so this argues that the NJPSV is certainly comprehensible by an average 7th grade student.

Similarly, Alter is not particularly difficult -- in fact, I think it the language is simpler than the NJPSV or NRSV. (I will accept that Fox is more difficult to read, but that is because of highly literal nature of the translation rather than the inherent difficulty of the language.)

Now, the idea of grade-level language ratings have always struck me as quite odd. (Indeed, here is an analysis [admittedly, an absurd analysis] that claims the KJV is at the 6th grad level.) The complexity of writing is rarely the barrier to understanding -- it is the conceptual ideas. Pick up any graduate level math textbook and you will see what I mean -- the language is trivial but many will find the language challenging. In this fashion, I would say that the concepts of the Bible are difficult -- e.g., in the case of Christian Scriptures, the Pauline epistles are difficult -- not because of language, but because of the complexity of the logic and the subtlety of the distinctions.

Similarly Aquinas' Latin is certainly simpler than Cicero's, but which writer is harder to understand?

I believe we are compelled to read the most challenging and enlightening translations (or even better, original works) of our sacred books that we can find. As I put it elsewhere,

I do think that anyone who "holds back" and does not use all his intellectual, spiritual, emotional, and philosophical skills to understand Scripture is turning his back on Scripture. If one loves God, why love Him in a half-hearted way?

Here is the way that our teacher Moses put it one of his most famous speeches:

And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

[JohnFH]

Here is the chart I'm working off of - www.geocities.com/
bible_translation/
glossr.htm is the source:

Various English Bible versions rank differently in terms of reading level because of differences among them with respect to factors such as vocabulary familiarity, sentence length, and difficulty of syntactic constructions. In the "Bible Comparison Guide," distributed by the Zondervan Corporation (publishers of the NIV), the grade reading levels are listed as following for these English versions. (The numbers refer to grade reading level. Hence, 4.8 would indicate a reading level expected to be achieved by a typical student nearing the end of the 4th grade. For the Bible abbreviations used below, see English versions.)

NIV 7.8
NIrV 2.90
KJV 12.00
NKJV 9.0
NLT 6.30
LB 8.33
NASB 11.32
NCV/ICB 3.90
NRSV 10.40
NAB 6.60
TEV 7.29
TM 4.8
CEV 5.4
GW 5.8

The translations with the highest rankings:

KJV 12.00
NASB 11.32
NRSV 10.40
NKJV 9.0

It's possible that NJPSV and Alter belong closer to NRSV than to KJV, that is, at 11 rather than 12 in this scale. To suggest instead that they belong with

NIV 7.8
TEV 7.29

would be off-base, and I think you will agree.

Many churches give out NRSVs to 7th graders without any complaints heard. This backs up your point.

[Iyov]

You pick the third-grade class, we'll give them NIrV's, and then see how many can explain what Paul meant in Romans -- and we'll get E. P. Sanders to grade them.